Page 1 of 7
#2:
Team development and intergroup development are similar interventions
that occur at different levels of the organization.
Team development seeks to increase the effectiveness of work units (i.e.,
teams) by assessing and intervening in team problems that come from a variety of
sources, including: goals, size, leadership, decision making, member needs,
norms, and homogeneity. Team development gets teams to “spend some time on
the process of team interaction, that is, on how they work together and what they
accomplish” (p. 315). The specific interventions include outdoor labs, role
negotiation, role analysis, and several others. In short, team development gets the
individuals that comprise a team to understand how the members can best work
together in order to make an effective team.
Intergroup development is quite the same as team development except that
it addresses cooperation and effectiveness at an organizational level. Its goal is to
“increase cooperation among organization subsystems” (p. 346). It addresses
issues like suboptimization (when a group optimizes its own goals at the expense
of organizational goals), intergroup competition, role conflict & ambiguity, and
others. In short, intergroup development gets the groups that comprise an
organization to understand how the groups can best work together in order to
make an effective organization.
Page 2 of 7
As can hopefully be seen from the previous discussion, the two
interventions are similar in that they both are centered around increasing
cooperation and clarifying roles. The substantial difference between the two
methods is the unit of intervention: team development helps individuals to work
together effectively; intergroup development helps teams to work together
effectively.
#3:
Intergroup team building is a technique used to work out inter-group
conflicts and improve cooperation and effectiveness between two groups.
Usually, “the key members of conflicting groups meet to work on issues” (p.
354).
The process of intergroup team building usually takes one to two days and
can involve several practitioner strategies, including role-playing and conflict
management. For example, a practitioner must make sure that communications
are problem-centered rather than hostile and make sure that the flow of
communication between groups is free and open. It is also recommended that
each group undergo team development before attempting to undergo intergroup
team building. This is so that intragroup issues are worked out before trying to
work out intergroup issues.
Page 3 of 7
Intergroup team building usually takes five steps. Step 1 is to have each
group independently prepare three lists that answer the following questions: (1)
How do we see ourselves? (2) How do we think the other department sees us? and
(3) How do we see the other department? In Step 2, the groups meet and present
their lists—each group is not allowed to argue or defend itself. In Step 3, the
groups meet separately and discuss the “discrepancies in perception and react to
the feedback” (p. 355). In Step 4, the groups divide into subgroups composed of
members from both groups. These subgroups have the task of “agreeing upon a
diagnosis…and developing conflict-reducing…alternatives with action plans and
follow-up activities” (p. 355). Step 5 is usually a follow-up meeting for the groups
to assess the effectiveness of their action plan and to evaluate progress.
#4:
High-performing systems (HPS) have the following eight characteristics:
1. Knows why it exists. These systems are clear about their broad-level goals
and their short-term objectives to meet those goals.
2. High motivation. The commitment to system goals is real and driving.
Members are engaged and energetic about meeting objectives.
3. Task focused. The task at hand is at the center of all teamwork.
4. Strong leadership. An HPS has visible and strong leadership.
Page 4 of 7
5. Innovation. An HPS comes up with new ideas and ways of doing things
that are directly related to the task at hand.
6. Clear separation. There is a distinct feeling within the system that the
system is different than its environment. It is clear where the system ends
and begins.
7. Perceived negatively. An HPS is often viewed by other systems as
problematic. That is, because an HPS tends to live and thrive by its own
standards, other systems view the HPS negatively.
8. Cohesive. The system functions together ‘like a well-oiled machine.’ Its
processes occur with little friction or hesitation.
High-performing systems are most often led by enthusiastic and energetic leaders
whose vitality and ethos permeates the system, invigorating the workplace.
#6:
Likert’s System 4 management suggests that there are four different
management systems. System 1 is the least effective, and System 4 is the most
effective.
System 1. This refers to an exploitative-authoritative (i.e., autocratic)
approach to management. In System 1 organizations, communications (both
downward and upward through the chain of power) are viewed with suspicion.
Subordinates are rarely asked for their input and opinions, leaders do not show
Page 5 of 7
warmth or consideration for subordinates, and there are a lot of confusing,
unclear, and unnecessary policies and procedures.
System 2. This refers to a benevolent-authoritative approach. In System 2
organizations, there may be a little less suspicion of communication, and the flow
of communication may be slightly more two-way than a System 1 organization.
There may be a small degree of warmth and support from leadership, and the
policies aren’t quite as arcane and nebulous as those of a System 1.
System 3. System 3 organizations use a consultative approach.
Communications are freer than those in System 2 or 1 organizations. Leadership
takes an active role in supporting subordinates and acquiring feedback and input.
The organization’s policies are well understood, and there are less unnecessary
rules and procedures.
System 4. System 4 organizations use a participative approach. They are
“based on participative methods of decision-making and supervision,” and they
emphasize “employee involvement and participation” (p. 434). Communication is
free and open and travels in all organizational directions. Leaders seek out and
support subordinate opinions and decisions. Subordinates are given personal
responsibility and are allowed to make decisions. Organizational policies are
easily understood, and there is very little unnecessary “red tape.”
#7:
Page 6 of 7
In order for third-wave organizations to be successful in the information
age, they must posses the following characteristics:
1. Flexibility. This means there cannot be a lot of hierarchy—the
organization has to be flat and able to change rapidly. Bureaucracy and
red-tape has very little place in the information age. The culture of the
organization allows for rapid change and reorganization.
2. Creativity. In third-wave organizations, the members must be involved in
an a part of the vision or cause. Members are excited about achieving new
levels of creativity, production, and personal growth.
3. Innovation. Third-wave organizations encourage growth, innovative
thinking, and taking risks. The culture encourages participation of all
employees in the development of new ideas and products.
Page 7 of 7
Michael J. Walk
Organizational Development
Final Exam
11 December 2007